Xcott:The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion.

Okay, so then go own a firearm. You can buy them at the sporting goods store.

Or is this one of those "war on XYZ" things, where we convince ourselves that the government is about to ban everything on this list?

The usual. A bunch of stupid, privileged white people want to feel persecuted.

vygramul:whistleridge: So...run our country today in perpetual fear of a bloodbath to come? You and I both know that in a nuclear world, there is zero chance of an invader ever setting a non-glowing foot on US soil. If you think a city makes a tempting target, imagine what an invasion fleet full of fat slow troopships would look like.

If we ever get to the point that we're down to 20% of our military relying on assistance from - let's be realistic, 100 million will never happen - 10 million rednecks with assault rifles, we may as well hang it up, because at the point the aliens, vampires, or zombies are probably going to win.

And in the meantime, lots of schools will keep getting shot up...

I'm not following what you're saying here - are you saying that the US will fall into a revolution and while that's going on, we'll be invaded by North Korea and China a resurgent Austria-Hungarian Empire and that we'll be left with only 10 million rednecks with whom to defend ourselves?

dittybopper:hubiestubert: What is curious is that so many who support the 2nd Amendment seem so opposed to everyone enjoying the protection of the 1st.

That's a false dichotomy: Most of the staunch Second Amendment people I know value *ALL* of the Bill of Rights. In fact, they get *PISSED* because if you ignore the protection of one amendment (Usually the Second), then there is no reason to believe the others won't be ignored. Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.

What hole is that? Backing right wing candidates regardless of their gun control stances?

dittybopper:Mithiwithi: This. The day I stopped contributing to the NRA was the day I realized that, as an atheist and supporter of gay rights, I had more to fear from the average NRA member than I did from the government taking everyone's guns.

Show me where the NRA takes a stance on religion or gay rights.

Show me where the NRA has meddled in the legislative process for anything unrelated to guns.

You are blaming the NRA for the actions of some of their members, but the NRA is a single issue organization.

Also, organizations like Pink Pistols are generally welcomed by the largely (but not totally) conservative gun owners, but they get more grief from gay organizations:

"We've gotten a lot of support from the gun community in general," Krick says, "but as for the organizations geared towards the queer community, that's where we've been getting a lot more static." - Pink Pistols: Gay Gun Rights Group Is Ready to Fire

Whose members then vote for regressive policies on civil rights for others who aren't like them. You left that part out, probably intentionally.

Re: Pink Pistols. They get grief because they, to quote Jon Stewart graphic, "aren't helping." The reason why is what I just stated, and what you are trying to skirt around. NRA members are more likely to vote conservative, and support anti-gay policies. It's a positive correlation between the two. The Pink Pistols want to have their cake and eat it too, but can't because some NRA members (Which you just admitted with your "but not totally" clause) don't accept them, and supportin the NRA effectively occludes their push for equal rights on other issues.

If the NRA wasn't packed to the gills with and spoke loudest for the reactionary right, you'd have a point.

Or there's the fact that Mexican immigrants are leaving, rather than entering the US right now. Link

So with a militarized border, patrolled by Hellfire-armed UAV's, with Mexico's federales and Army on the other side, tell me, just why should anyone South of the border want to sell a bunch of white, Mexican-hating rednecks guns and ammo? Why when these are the exact same people who support kicking Mexican immigrants out of the country in the first place?

First, they're not leaving because the wall makes it harder for those already here.Second, that fence and hellfire-armed UAV's still lets in plenty of other "product" - which brings me to...Third, drug cartels care fark-all about rednecks. As long as they get paid, they'll smuggle RPGs inside bales of marijuana. Oh, wait, no drugs get in because of the wall, right?

LargeCanine:vygramul: whistleridge: So...run our country today in perpetual fear of a bloodbath to come? You and I both know that in a nuclear world, there is zero chance of an invader ever setting a non-glowing foot on US soil. If you think a city makes a tempting target, imagine what an invasion fleet full of fat slow troopships would look like.

If we ever get to the point that we're down to 20% of our military relying on assistance from - let's be realistic, 100 million will never happen - 10 million rednecks with assault rifles, we may as well hang it up, because at the point the aliens, vampires, or zombies are probably going to win.

And in the meantime, lots of schools will keep getting shot up...

I'm not following what you're saying here - are you saying that the US will fall into a revolution and while that's going on, we'll be invaded by North Korea and China a resurgent Austria-Hungarian Empire and that we'll be left with only 10 million rednecks with whom to defend ourselves?

Xcott:dittybopper: Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.

You mean fear of imaginary threats?

The ACLU steps in when people are being censored. The NRA steps in when alternate reality Obama enacts his invisible fake-out plan to not ban guns because he's totally about to ban guns.

The NRA was the first group to step in when the National Guard and NOLA police were confiscating guns from people in the before and after Katrina hit. There's a lot of derp coming out of LaPierre's mouth, but the NRA isn't all bad.

Fart_Machine:Yes, because the only reason we haven't been invaded is because Jethro owns a few rifles. Derp!

We'd be much better off as a nation if people really believed this. Then it would make no sense to invade Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein is amassing weapons of mass destruction, and any day now he's going to march his army across the secret land-bridge connecting the Middle East to America and gun us all down in cold blood after giving us 1000 more 9/11s."

EyeballKid:dittybopper: Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.

Please introduce me to these people. I have a unique investment opportunity involving some rather special, some have so far as called them "magic," beans, and I feel these are the sort of savvy individuals I could really work with.

Gee, a simple Google of:

Fark "NRA and ACLU"

brought up a couple of examples:

Fark Thread 6100887:yeastinfarktion2011-04-08 07:28:01 PMI work at a national lab, I'm currently listening to Zappa, and am an NRA and ACLU member.

Fark Thread 5934495:jbuist2011-02-06 11:34:58 AM...As a member of both the NRA and ACLU I'm OK with the ACLU not stepping up the fight on 2A issues. I just wish they'd wipe that "collective right" crap from their official stance.

Flipping the query to "ACLU and NRA" brought up another one:

Fark Thread 2044694bboy2006-05-03 10:48:56 AM...Are you also boycotting the NRA until they protect the first amendment? I hope you are.

/Gun nut, freedom lover, and card-carrying member, ACLU and NRA

I suppose I could find more with better google-fu, but using simple queries I found at least 3 farkers who claim to belong to both the NRA and the ACLU. You sarcastically contended that there were none.

The right to greenlight an American Derper link every day was considered by the Framers of the [Politics] Tab in 2008 to be equal in importance to the right to HERP DERPly, the right to flame-war and the right to drive page-clicks

Or there's the fact that Mexican immigrants are leaving, rather than entering the US right now. Link

So with a militarized border, patrolled by Hellfire-armed UAV's, with Mexico's federales and Army on the other side, tell me, just why should anyone South of the border want to sell a bunch of white, Mexican-hating rednecks guns and ammo? Why when these are the exact same people who support kicking Mexican immigrants out of the country in the first place?

First, they're not leaving because the wall makes it harder for those already here.Second, that fence and hellfire-armed UAV's still lets in plenty of other "product" - which brings me to...Third, drug cartels care fark-all about rednecks. As long as they get paid, they'll smuggle RPGs inside bales of marijuana. Oh, wait, no drugs get in because of the wall, right?

They get in because of human trafficking and drug subs, both of which are frequently interdicted by the US Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs. Yes they do catch these guys all the time, even if other stuff slips through.

Here's the rub: drugs for a hungry populace of all colors is not the same as a bunch of white rednecks, who want ammo to overthrow the US government, and kick out more minorities if they took over. So the drug lords of South America don't have much of a stake in helping out Shays Rebellion part II. In fact keeping the US as it is helps them more, because a stable America is a wealthy and drug-hungry America that keeps their supply lines going. An unstable one creates greater risk; it's the devil you know type situation for a cartel.

What's ironic though is not only are you arguing in support of the overthrow of the United States government in this hypothetical situation, you are arguing in favor of using the Zetas to help do it. Are you prepared to dial up Hezbollah too if things aren't going your way?

dittybopper:I suppose I could find more with better google-fu, but using simple queries I found at least 3 farkers who claim to belong to both the NRA and the ACLU. You sarcastically contended that there were none.

I was not implying that they didn't exist, but rather that they were likely rather naive and gullib....I mean, that they're very, very, very sharp people, and mayhap I misjudged your mental acuity. You just might be with-it enough to take advantage of my special investment opportunity. Forget gold and silver, magic beans will keep you safe in the future!

verbaltoxin:They get in because of human trafficking and drug subs, both of which are frequently interdicted by the US Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs. Yes they do catch these guys all the time, even if other stuff slips through.

Here's the rub: drugs for a hungry populace of all colors is not the same as a bunch of white rednecks, who want ammo to overthrow the US government, and kick out more minorities if they took over. So the drug lords of South America don't have much of a stake in helping out Shays Rebellion part II. In fact keeping the US as it is helps them more, because a stable America is a wealthy and drug-hungry America that keeps their supply lines going. An unstable one creates greater risk; it's the devil you know type situation for a cartel.

What's ironic though is not only are you arguing in support of the overthrow of the United States government in this hypothetical situation, you are arguing in favor of using the Zetas to help do it. Are you prepared to dial up Hezbollah too if things aren't going your way?

If there is widespread enough demand for military weapons north of the border, the drug demand is going to be going down a lot. The US is not going to be stable or wealthy in that scenario. If drug demand goes down, the cartels would most certain augment that revenue with gun running. Hell they do it to a certain extent already. They would just reverse the direction.

verbaltoxin:If the NRA wasn't packed to the gills with and spoke loudest for the reactionary right, you'd have a point.

The NRA as an organization has *ZERO* interest in anything other than firearms.

See the kerfuffle a few years ago when the NRA had to remind the Republican Party that the "R" stood for "Rifle", not "Republican".

The NRA has, and does, endorse people who hold stereotypical liberal positions on things other than firearms, so long as their firearms.

It is true that the majority of the people the NRA endorses are relatively conservative. It's not because the NRA itself is necessarily that conservative, it's that conservatives have generally (though not wholly) embraced a broad reading of the Second Amendment, and liberals have generally (though not wholly) embraced a very narrow reading of the Second Amendment.

In other words, the NRA is mostly (but not wholly) composed of, and generally (though not always) endorses conservatives not because it is itself a conservative organization, but because liberals generally (but not completely) don't believe guns are an individual right.

I mean, we're *STILL* arguing this 4 years after DC v. Heller settled the issue, and two years after McDonald v. Chicago incorporated it against the states.

We are here to help the Democrats, because inside every liberal there is a gun owner trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this gun control craze blows over.

EyeballKid:dittybopper: I suppose I could find more with better google-fu, but using simple queries I found at least 3 farkers who claim to belong to both the NRA and the ACLU. You sarcastically contended that there were none.

I was not implying that they didn't exist, but rather that they were likely rather naive and gullib....I mean, that they're very, very, very sharp people, and mayhap I misjudged your mental acuity. You just might be with-it enough to take advantage of my special investment opportunity. Forget gold and silver, magic beans will keep you safe in the future!

And, I'll post this for you people who don't understand how the 2nd amendment works.

The 2nd Amendment, like many other parts of the Constitution contains an operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") and a prefatory clause ("well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State").

The operative clause gives a limitation on the power of the Federal Government. (Note that no where in Heller, or any other prior case, has the 2nd Amendment been held as enforceable against the States under the 14th Amendment. Whether or not Heller limits the power of States to ban or regulate handguns is still an open question currently working its way through the courts.) The prefatory clause serves as one explanation of why that limitation exists, but in general explanatory phrases in the Constitution are not interpreted to be exclusive, especially where only one example is provided. (The interpretory maxim "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" generally applies only to lists of multiple examples.)

So as to what the phrase "well regulated" means, the answer is "not much". The 2nd Amendment does not only protect the rights of people in a well regulated Militia to own firearms. It protects the right of the People to own and bear firearms so that in times of need they could, on their own without the permission of the government, form a "well regulated militia".

This makes sense given the way that militias operated at the time the Constitution was adopted. People didn't go out and buy firearms so they could join a militia (or vice-versa). When a militia was needed, the citizens formed and mobilized the militia using the personal arms that they already owned. To require that people first be part of a "well regulated militia" in order to be able to own a firearm wouldn't make much sense. Militias by their nature are generally not permanent or even long lasting organizations. If you had to be in a militia in order to own a firearm, then when the time came that we actually needed an armed militia, most people wouldn't have their own arms to use.

NRA Endorses 14 House Democrats Over Republicansby FRANK JAMESOctober 06, 201011:32 PMThe NRA has earned a reputation over the decades as a pro-gun advocacy group that's solidly in the Republican camp.

But in what will no doubt come as a surprise to many, the organization is endorsing 14 House Democrats in close races because their Second Amendment views line up with the with those of the gun-rights group.

It's an unwelcome move as far as Republicans are concerned. They've come to take NRA endorsements of their candidates as a given.

The Washington Post reports the NRA's policy in recent years is to support incumbents when their positions on gun rights are similar to the NRA's and their challengers.

That approach favors more than a dozen Democrats in tough races this year, according to the WaPo.

An excerpt:

Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

The result: Of the 20 most endangered incumbent House Democrats in the country - based on race ratings by The Washington Post's "The Fix" - 14 have received the endorsement of the NRA's Political Victory Fund.

A Dark Evil Omen:Which is why they supported Romney, who, has a history of signing stringent gun control legislation, as Boehner's muppet, would sign any Republican-approved bill and veto any Democrat-approved bill, over Obama, who has a history of extending gun rights of being a Democrat.

Fixed that for the issues the NRA (at a national level) cares about. The local branches might be all about gun rights, but the national organization is purely partisan at this point.

A Dark Evil Omen:dittybopper: The NRA as an organization has *ZERO* interest in anything other than firearms.

Which is why they supported Romney, who has a history of signing stringent gun control legislation, over Obama, who has a history of extending gun rights.

Even disregarding Obama's memberships and positions on firearms before he was president, his administration specifically chose not to appeal a federal court decision on the Bush administration's attempt to pass the National Parks provision. It got tacked onto one of the cornerstones of his economic reform policy as an unrelated rider. At best, he saw something he had already rejected as worth pursuing and decided he could swallow it given what he was signing.

Hobodeluxe:vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

exactly. and there wasn't police around everywhere like there is now. there also wasn't instant communication. and most people back then lived out on their own for the most part. they had farms and had to deal with wild animals and such. I personally think people should be able to have a gun. but it should not be that easy to get. you should have to undergo a psych eval. and carry liability insurance.

I'm not sure about all that, but I find it interesting that in my state, every time I buy a hunting license, I have to show my hunter/firearm safety certificate, but every time I buy an actual gun, I don't.

oldass31:Hobodeluxe: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

exactly. and there wasn't police around everywhere like there is now. there also wasn't instant communication. and most people back then lived out on their own for the most part. they had farms and had to deal with wild animals and such. I personally think people should be able to have a gun. but it should not be that easy to get. you should have to undergo a psych eval. and carry liability insurance.

I'm not sure about all that, but I find it interesting that in my state, every time I buy a hunting license, I have to show my hunter/firearm safety certificate, but every time I buy an actual gun, I don't.

Because they are giving you permission to fire the gun or use a deadly weapon on publicly owned land during specifically laid out times of year while at the same time knowing which animals are fair game and which aren't. There's no reason* to ask when or where or why you are buying a gun.

Costas' remark was guns do not make people safer. This is statistically a valid statement. People with guns are more likely to be the victims of gun violence. That said, it is also not a strong correlation as it ignores many other factors that apply.

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:

1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.

For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.

Sounds pro-gun to me.2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.

Pro-gun again.3. Extended the term of the state's firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.

Pro-gun.4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

Pro-gun. What the bill did was keep the exemptions in MA state law that were tied to the federal ban in, so that you wouldn't have all semi-autos with removable magazines banned under the more vague state definition. At the very *WORST*, it preserved the status quo in the face of a potential disaster for gun owners in Massachusetts.

5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.

Sounds like a pro-gun provision to me.6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.

Pro-gun again.7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.

This one is a wash, not very pro-gun, but not anti-gun either.8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver's license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3" x 4".

Weakly pro-gun.9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.

It's a wash on this last one.

So Romney was misinformed or misspoke about what he signed, but it was a distinct relaxation of the original 1998 Massachusetts AWB, which was enacted prior to him taking office in 2003.

What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.

/and why would a military or a state run militia need special rights to own weapons? You'd tend to assume that's a given./Which is probably why the 2nd amendment says "The people" and not "These people".

way south:What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.

/and why would a military or a state run militia need special rights to own weapons? You'd tend to assume that's a given./Which is probably why the 2nd amendment says "The people" and not "These people".

dittybopper:Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

incendi:A Dark Evil Omen: Which is why they supported Romney, who, has a history of signing stringent gun control legislation, as Boehner's muppet, would sign any Republican-approved bill and veto any Democrat-approved bill, over Obama, who has a history of extending gun rights of being a Democrat.

Fixed that for the issues the NRA (at a national level) cares about. The local branches might be all about gun rights, but the national organization is purely partisan at this point.

No, they aren't. Kirsten Gillibrand is the *PERFECT* example of why they might seem that way: The NRA endorsed Democrat Gillibrand when she was a representative for upstate New York, because she voted like her constituents wanted: Pro-gun. She was otherwise relatively liberal.

When she was appointed as a senator by the Governor of New York to fill in a vacancy left by Senator Hillary Clinton (who had been appointed SecState by President Obama), she modified her stance to be in favor of gun control so that she wouldn't lose votes in the more liberal NYC area, which dominates state politics. *THAT* is why the NRA stopped endorsing her.

The NRA endorses pro-gun democrats at the national level in *EVERY*FARKING*ELECTION*, and we have to go around and around every time pointing this out to people who think they are clever, but actually have a very shallow understanding the NRA.

So, for the billionth time: The NRA is a single issue organization. Period. When you truly understand that, all of their actions become quite rational and logical.

vygramul:I'm not following what you're saying here - are you saying that the US will fall into a revolution and while that's going on, we'll be invaded by North Korea and China a resurgent Austria-Hungarian Empire and that we'll be left with only 10 million rednecks with whom to defend ourselves?

No, I'm saying that after the zombies kill and eat and convert a good chunk of the population, a max of 10 million people would be willing and able to fight on. Because that's the only way any of these stupid freeper scenarios have any chance of coming to pass.

No one is nuts enough to invade the US because 1. it's more profitable to trade with us, 2. we have the largest and most powerful Navy in history, and 3. we have a very powerful nuclear arsenal. Take those 3 things away, and see how quick the world's other powers carve us up the way Europe did with China in the 19th century.